THE 


IIRSE    OF    NATURE: 


A.I3DRES8 


DELIVERED  BEFORE   THE 

AMERICAN   ASSOCIATION   FOR   THE   ADVANCEMENT   OF    SCIENCE, 
St.  Louis,  August  22,  1878, 


SIMON  yNEWCOMB, 

Retiring    President   of  the   Association. 


r 


SALEM: 
PRINTED    AT    THE    SALEM    PRESS, 

1878. 


GIFT  OF 


THIS 


COURSE    OF    NATURE 


A.3ST    .ADDRESS 


DELIVERED  BEFORE  THE 


AMEEICAN  ASSOCIATION   FOR   THE  ADVANCEMENT  OF   SCIENCE, 
St,  Louis,  August  22,  1878, 


BY 

SIMON    NEWCOMB, 

M 

Retiring  President  of  the  Association. 


SALEM: 
PRINTED    AT   THE    SALEM   PRESS. 

1878. 


ADDRESS 

OF 

PBOFESSOE    SIMON    NEWCOMB, 

THE  RETIRING  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  ASSOCIATION. 


LADIES  AND   GENTLEMEN  OF    THE   AMERICAN    ASSOCIATION    FOR 
THE  ADVANCEMENT  OF   SCIENCE:  — 

IN  imposing  on  its  retiring  President  the  duty  of  delivering  an 
address,  the  constitution  of  this  society  sets  no  limits  to  his  choice 
of  a  theme.  Both  in  these  and  in  the  corresponding  addresses 
delivered  before  the  sister  society  of  Great  Britain,  it  has  not  been 
uncommon  for  the  speaker  to  choose  for  his  subject  the  general 
progress  of  scientific  research  during  the  year.  This  course  is 
now  less  common  than  formerly,  because,  owing  to  the  immensity 
of  the  field  of  research,  it  has  become  impossible  for  any  ordi- 
nary mind  to  follow  its  progress  in  all  its  branches.  I  have 
thought,  therefore,  that  a  higher  interest  would  attach  to  a  theme 
chosen  from  the  field  of  modern  scientific  thought,  and,  by  a 
process  in  which  I  have  been  the  follower  rather  than  the  leader  of 
my  own  contemplations,  I  have  been  led  to  present  to  you  some 
thoughts  on  the  Course  of  Nature  as  seen  in  the  light  of  modern 
scientific  and  philosophic  research.  Though  I  have  but  a  single 
central  idea  to  present  to  you,  namely,  that  of  the  simplicity  and 
universality  of  the  Laws  of  Nature,  yet  so  great  is  the  confusion 
of  thought  whiph  prevails  on  the  question,  What  are  the  Laws  of 

A.  A.  A.  S.,  VOL.  XXVII.  1 


2  ADDRESS    OP 

Nature,  that  it  is  necessary  to  approach  my  idea  from  more  than 
one  standpoint,  and  to  illustrate  it  in  more  than  one  way. 

We  all  know  that  the  history  of  the  Caucasian  race,  during  the 
last  three  centuries,  has  been  marked  by  a  kind  of  intellectual 
development  so  entirely  without  precedent  that  some  might  call 
it  miraculous  ;  in  fact,  by  such  a  development  of  the  understanding 
of  the  course  of  nature  as  has  revolutionized  human  society  in 
many  of  its  phases.  You  also  know  that  thi^s  development  has 
been  marked  by  frequent  collisions  of  opinion  between  the  inves- 
tigators of  the  material  manifestations  of  nature  on  the  one  side 
(if  I  may  be  allowed  to  use  the  expression),  and  philosophers  and 
theologians  on  the  other,  respecting  the  true  theory  of  the  course 
of  nature.  My  desire  in  entering  this  field  is  to  act  the  part  of 
the  peacemaker  rather  than  that  of  a  combatant,  not  sustaining 
any  other  propositions  than  those  which  are  actually  believed  in 
by  the  large  majority  of  educated  men  at  the  present  time ;  but 
the  confusion  of  thought  on  this  subject,  to  which  I  have  just 
alluded,  is  so  great  that,  although  I  may  combat  no  opinions 
actually  held,  it  may  be  necessary  to  greatly  modify  their  applica- 
tion, and  to  criticise  the  forms  in  which  they  have  found  expres- 
sion. 

The  key-note  of  my  discourse  is  found  in  a  proposition  which  is 
fundamental  in  the  history  of  modern  science,  and  without  a  clear 
understanding  of  which  everything  I  say  may  be  entirely  misun- 
derstood. This  proposition  is,  that  science  concerns  itself  only 
with  phenomena  and  the  relations  which  connect  them,  and  does 
not  take  account  of  any  questions  which  do  not  in  some  way  admit 
of  being  brought  to  the  test  of  observation.  The  only  universe  it 
knows  is  that  made  known  by  the  telescope,  the  microscope,  and 
other  appliances  of  observation.  That  this  is  the  whole  universe 
we  should  all  be  very  sorry  to  suppose,  and  none  more  so  than  he 
who  has  the  honor  to  address  you.  But,  should  I  pretend  to  a , 
scientific  knowledge  of  what  lies  behind  this  visible  frame,  I  should 
be  acting  the  part  of  the  rash  speculator  rather  than  of  the  cau- 
tious thinker.  Only  into  a  single  field  of  thought  do  I  dare  to 
venture.  When  we  trace  the  efforts  of  men  to  penetrate  the 
secrets  of  nature,  we  find  them  clearly  divisible  into  two  classes : 
philosophic  speculation,  and  scientific  investigation.  We  find  the 
objects  of  thought  equally  divisible  into  two  classes :  phenomena 
and  their  hidden  causes,  those  unknowable  entities  out  of  which 


PRESIDENT   NEWCOMB.  3 

they  proceed.  The  great  progress  which  the  last  three  centuries 
have  witnessed  has  been  wholly  in  the  field  of  phenomena,  and  it 
is  to  this  field,  and  to  the  results  of  scientific' investigation  in  it,  to 
which  I  ask  your  attention  this  evening.  But,  it  is  to  be  expected 
that,  in  this  brief  characterization  of  our  field  of  thought,  I  have 
failed  to  convey  to  your  minds  any  clear  conception  of  its  bounda- 
ries. The  progress  here  alluded  to  has  been  rendered  possible 
only  by  entirely  rejecting  the  mode  of  thinking  about  nature  which 
was  prevalent  in  former  ages,  and  into  which  the  untrained  mind 
is  almost  sure  to  fall  at  the  present  day.  The  distinction  will  be 
evident  to  one  mind  at  a  glance,  while  another  may  be  unable  to 
comprehend  it  after  all  the  explanations  which  it  is  possible  to 
give.  As  my  whole  discourse  will  be  misleading  unless  all  my 
hearers  have  a  clear  conception  of  it,  I  shall  endeavor  to  present 
you  with  the  materials  of  such  a  conception,  rather  in  the  form  of 
concrete  illustrations  in  familiar  language,  than  in  that  of  abstract 
general  definitions. 

As  one  mode  of  expression,  we  might  say  that  modern  science 
introduces  into  the  higher  modes  of  thought  about  nature  that 
same  kind  of  practical  good  sense  which  characterizes  the  success- 
ful man  of  business.  Scientific  investigation  is,  in  a  certain  sense, 
purely  practical  in  both  its  methods  and  its  aims.  There  is  a 
mental  operation,  with  which  all  are  well  acquainted,  under  the 
familiar  term  "theorizing;"  to  this  operation  all  scientific  investi- 
gation «is  so  much  opposed  that  the  mere  theorizer  and  essayist 
can  never  make  any  real  advance  in  the  knowledge  of  nature.  To 
speak  with  a  little  more  precision,  we  may  say,  that  as  science 
only  deals  with  phenomenon  and  the  laws  which  connect  them,  so 
all  the  terms  which  it  uses  have  exact  literal  meanings,  and  refer 
only  to  things  which  admit  of  being  perceived  by  the  senses,  or, 
at  least,  of  being  conceived  as  thus  perceptible.  This  purely  lit- 
eral meaning  of  all  scientific  language  is  in  strong  contrast  to  the 
metaphorical  and  poetical  forms  of  expression  into  which  we  are 
apt  to  fall  in  discourse  upon  abstract  subjects  generally,  where 
our  ideas  cannot  be  at  once  referred  to  sensuous  impressions. 

We  might  also  say,  that  no  question  is  a  scientific  one  which 
does  not  in  some  way  admit  of  being  tested  by  experience.  The 
single  object  of  scientific  research  is  to  predict  the  course  of 
nature,  or  the  results  of  those  artificial  combinations  of  causes 
which  we  call  experiments ;  and  no  question  is  a  scientific  one 


4  ADDRESS    OP 

unless  its  solution  will  in  some  way  advance  this  object.  I  must 
not,  however,  be  understood  as  saying  that  the  test  of  experience 
can  always  be  immediately  applied,  because  then  no  disputed 
question  could  be  a  scientific  one.  For  example,  the  question 
whether  man  existed  on  the  earth  50,000  years  ago  is  a  scientific 
one,  because  it  is  one  respecting  actual  historic  occurrence  of 
scenes  evident  to  the  senses.  It  could  at  once  be  settled  by 
simple  inspection,  could  we  in  any  way  form  a  picture  of  the  earth 
as  it  then  looked,  and  it  may  actually  be  settled  in  the  future  by 
the  presence  or  absence  of  sensible  traces  of  the  existence  of  man 
at  those  times.  Should  we,  however,  go  farther,  and  inquire 
whether  such  men  had  souls,  our  inquiry  would  not  be  a  scientific 
one,  nor  one  in  which  science  could  in  any  way  concern  itself  with 
profit.  The  soul  can  neither  be  seen,  nor  in  any  way  made  evi- 
dent to  the  senses  of  others.  From  the  very  nature  of  things,  it 
could  leave  no  material  trace  of-  itself  to  be  unearthed  by  the  geol- 
ogist or  antiquarian  of  a  future  age.  So  far  are  we  from  forming 
any  conception  even  of  our  own  souls,  as  sensible  existences,  that 
no  question  affecting  them,  even  now,  is  a  scientific  one ;  milch 
less  can  science  consider  those  of  past  generations. 

There  is  thus  a  quite  well  defined  limit  between  questions  which 
are  scientific  ones  and  those  which  are  not  scientific,  and  with 
which,  in  consequence,  science  has  no  concern  whatever.  You 
must  not  understand  me  as  in  any  way  claiming  that  questions  of 
this  last  class  are  not  worth  thinking  about.  They  include  many 
which  are  of  the  most  absorbing  interest  to  the  human  race,  and 
about  which  men  will  think  the  more  as  they  become  more  thought- 
ful. But  to  mix  them  with  scientific  discussions  will  only  introduce 
confusion  of  thought  respecting  sensible  things,  without  in  any 
manner  advancing  their  solutions.  The  current  desires  that^  sci- 
ence shall  consider  man  as  something  more  than  an  animal  are  as 
unreasonable  as  if  we  wanted  to  make  algebra  a  help  to  moral 
philosophy. 

This  limitation  of  all  scientific  research  to  a  single  specific  field 
is  something  so  little  understood,  that  I  may  have  occasion  to  call 
it  to  mind  in  other  connections.  But,  there  is  another  equally 
essential  maxim  of  science  which  I  must  explain  in  order  that  you 
may  understand  the  spirit  which  animates  scientific  investigation. 
It  is,  that  the  man  of  science,  as  such,  has  no  preconceived  theories 
to  support,  but  simply  goes'  to  nature  to  find  out  and  interpret 


PRESIDENT   NEWCOMB.  5 

what  she  has  to  say  according  to  her  exact  meaning.  What  he 
may  desire  to  be  true  has  no  bearing  at  all  on  the  question  what 
really  is  true.  •  Here  arises  the  inability  of  men  of  science  to  view 
theological  questions  in  a  light  which  shall  be  satisfactory  to  the 
theologians,  and  the  corresponding  inability  of  the  latter  to  appre- 
ciate the  spirit  in  which  men  of  science  discuss  the  problems  of 
life  and  being.  We  hear  much  at  the  present  time  of  a  supposed 
conflict  between  science  and  religion,  but  it  is  rather  a  conflict 
between  two  sets  of  men  who  view  nature  from  opposite  and  ir- 
reconcilable standpoints.  It  is  essential,  to  the  understanding  of 
our  theme,  that  we  should  see  in  what  this  difference  of  view  con- 
sists ;  I  shall,  therefore,  endeavor  briefly  to  explain  it. 

The  theologian  looks  upon  the  doctrines  he  has  been  taught,  as 
something  the  truth  of  which  is  essential  to  the  welfare  of  hu- 
manity, and,  we  might  almost  say,  to  the  supremacy  of  the  Creator. 
He  thus  invests  them  with  an  attribute  of  moral  excellence,  im- 
plied rather  than  expressed  in  the  term  orthodoxy,  and  looks' upon 
those  who  attack  them,  not  simply  as  men  who  are  mistaken,  but 
as  men  who  are  seeking  to  do  a  great  injury  to  the  human  race. 
Hence,  the  idea  of  weighing  the  arguments  on  both  sides  with 
entire  indifference  to  the  result,  is  one  which  he  cannot  be  expected 
to  receive  with  favor,  or  even  to  readily  comprehend  as  received 
by  others.  His  idea  of  truth  is  symbolized  in  the  pure  marble 
statue  which  must  be  protected  from  contact  with  profane  hands, 
and  whose  value  arises  from  its  beauty  of  form  and  the  excellence 
of  the  ideas  which  it  embodies.  He  therefore  looks  upon  those 
who  attack  it,  with  feelings  not  unlike  those  of  the  keeper  of  the 
statue  upon  a  chemist,  who  refuses  to  see  anything  in  the  statue 
except  a  lump  of  carbonate  of  calcium  of  peculiar  form,  and  who 
wants  to  handle  it,  weigh  it,  determine  its  specific  gravity  and  its 
cohesive  power,  and  test  its  substance  with  acids.  The  correspond- 
ing idea  of  the  scientific  investigator  is  symbolized  by  the  iron- 
clad turret,  which  cannot  be  accepted  until  it  has  proved  its  invul- 
nerability. Instead,  therefore,  of  being  protected  from  violence 
as  if  it  were  a  product  of  the  fine  arts,  violence  is  invited.  Its 
weak  points  are  sought  out  by  eyes  intent  on  discovering  them, 
and  are  exposed  to  the  fire  of  every  logical  weapon  which  can  be 
brought  to  bear  upon  them.  A  scientific  theory  may  thus  be 
completely  demolished  ;  it  may  prove  so  far  from  perfect  that  its 
author  is  glad  to  withdraw  it  for  repairs  or  reconstruction ;  or  it 


0  ADDRESS    OF 

may  be  hammered  into  an  entirely  new  shape.  But  however  com- 
pletely it  may  stand  the  fire,  it  maintains  its  position  as  a  scientific 
theory  only  by  being  always  in  the  field  ready  to  challenge  every 
new  comer,  and  to  meet  the  fire  of  every  fact  which  seems  to  mili- 
tate against  it.  A  countless  host  of  theories  have  thus  been 
demolished  and  forgotten  with  the  advance  of  knowledge,  but  those 
which  remain,  having  stood  the  fire  of  generations,  can  show  us  a 
guarantee  of  their  truthfulness  which  would  not  be  possible  under 
any  other  plan  of  dealing  with  them. 

As  a  consequence  of  this  way  of  viewing  theories,  the  scientific 
man  recognizes  no  such  attribute  as  orthodoxy  in  his  doctrines. 
There  is  nothing  at  all  which  he  says  you  must  believe  to  be  true 
as  a  condition  of  scientific  recognition.  There  may,  indeed,  be 
many  propositions  to  doubt  which  would  indicate  extraordinary 
incredulity,  or  down-right  folly,  or  even  insanity,  and  he  might, 
therefore,  regard  a  skeptic  as  possessing  a  pitiful  feeblenesss  of 
intellect,  and,  in  consequence,  refuse  to  listen  to  him ;  but  he 
would  refuse,  not  because  the  man  disbelieved  something  which 
was  undoubtedly  true,  but  because  he  was  not  worth  listening  to. 
Perhaps  the  point  which  I  am  striving  to  make  clear  may  be  most 
readily  grasped  by  the  reflection  that  science  offers  its  highest 
,  rewards  to  him  who  will  overthrow  and  supplant  its  best  estab- 
lished and  most  widely  received  theories.  Thus,  the  names  of  the 
men  who  disproved  the  theory  of  epicj^cles  in  astronomy,  and  the 
doctrine  of  phlogiston  in  chemistry,  occupy  the  most  honorable 
positions  in  the  history  of  science.  Of  course,  no  such  thing  as 
authority  in  science  has  anything  more  than  a  provisional  recogni- 
tion. If  a  man  of  good  repute  says  that  he  has  investigated  a 
certain  subject  and  reached  a  certain  result,  the  latter  may  be  ac- 
cepted on  his  authority,  in  the  absence  of  other  evidence.  But 
this  gives  no  reason  at  all  why  anyone  else  should  not  reach  a 
different  result,  and  it  would  be  no  argument  at  all  to  cite  the 
mere  authority  of  the  first  against  the  second.  In  case  of  a  dis- 
crepancy of  this  kind,  the  whole  question  would  have  to  be  reinves- 
tigated.  The  dictum,  "It  is  written,"  has  no  terror  whatever  for 
the  investigator  of  nature  ;  he  can  recognize  no  authority  for  any 
feature  in  the  course  of  nature,  except  nature  herself  as  he  sees 
her. 

These  principles  are  of  so  much  importance  in  the  philosophy 
of  science,  that  I  may  be  pardoned  for  viewing  them  in  yet  another 


PRESIDENT   NEWCOMB.  < 

light.  In  reading  those  discussions  with  scientific  men  on  certain 
theories  recently  advanced  by  the  more  advanced  students  of  phi- 
losophic biology  into  which  the  representatives  of  theology  some- 
times enter,  I  have  often  noticed,  that  if  the  representative  of 
science  propounds,  discovers,  or  brings  forward  any  fact  or  princi- 
ple which  seems  to  tell  against  his  side  of  the  question,  the  Other 
calls  it  an  "admission,"  or  "concession,"  just  as  if  his  opponent 
had  first  selected  his  side  for  the  love  of  it,  and  was  then  unwilling 
to  concede  or  admit  anything  which  might  militate  against  it. 
Now,  to  go  into  the  philosophy  of  the  subject  a  little  deeper  than 
heretofore,  allow  me  to  say  that  the  man  of  science  professes  no 
ability  to  recognize  truth  on  sight,  as  he  would  recognize  a  house 
or  an  animal.  The  question  whether  any  given  proposition  is  or  is 
not  true,  is  necessarily  to  be  decided  by  the  human  judgment,  co- 
ordinating all  the  facts  which  bear  upon  it.  There  is  no  such 
thing  as  a  revelation  of  scientific  truths,  and  even  if  one  should 
claim  that  there  was,  the  admission  or  rejection  of  the  claim  would 
be  an  act  of  the  judgment,  which  thus  becomes  the1  ultimate  ar- 
biter in  any  case.  Hence  a  proposition  is  to  be  proved  probable  or 
true,  not  by  anything  in  itself,  but  by  a  more  or  less  long  and 
painful  examination  of  the  evidence  for  and  against  it.  Every- 
thing that  can  be  found  to  militate  in  favor  of  it  is  put  into  one 
scale,  and  everything  that  can  be  found  to  militate  against  it  is 
put  into  the  other.  If  the  investigator  is  imbued  with  the  true 
spirit  of  science,  his  search  is  equally  vigorous  for  arguments  to 
go  into  the  two  scales.  When  he  says  that  the  proposition  is 
worthy  of  being  received  as  true,  he  means,  not  that  it  bears  any 
recognized  seal  of  truth,  but  that  the  evidence  in  favor  of  it  en- 
tirely preponderates  over  all  that  can  be  brought  to  bear  against 
it. 

You  will  not  understand  me  as  maintaining  that  every  individual 
man  of  science  constantly  maintains  this  spirit  of  impartiality 
any  more  than  that  every  Christian  constantly  lives  up  to  the 
highest  standard  of  his  profession.  Hot  conflicts  have  sometimes 
raged,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  they  have  entirely 
Ceased,  even  now,  in  which  each  combatant  could  only  see  one 
scale.  But  the  spirit  I  have  described  is  that  in  which  science 
exhorts  her  votaries  to  approach  every  question,  and  in  which  they 
will  constantly  endeavor  to  approach  it  if  they  are  worthy  of  their 
profession. 


8  ADDRESS   OF 

' ' 

Let  us  now  approach  our  main  theme,  the  course  of  visible 
nature.  Let  me  again  remind  you  that  of  the  two  universes,  the 
seen  and  the  unseen,  I  am  only  going  to  speak  of  the  former.  We 
find  ourselves  placed  in  this  world  in  the  midst  of  a  vast  theatre  of 
.  activity.  We  see  an  atmosphere  agitated  by  storms  ;  great  masses 
of  water  rising  in  the«air  to  form  clouds,  and,  after  falling  to  the 
earth,  flowing  as  mighty  rivers  to  the  ocean ;  countless  forms  of 
vegetation  rising  from  the  earth,  and  then  returning  to  it ;  a  sun 
supporting  all  life  on  our  planet  with  its  heat ;  an  infinitude  of 
chemical  changes  going  on  around  us ;  countless  stars  moving 
through  space  with  velocities  which  transcend  all  our  conceptions. 
To  all  appearance  these  operations  have  been  going  on  for  millions 
of  ages  past,  and  may  continue  for  millions  of  ages  to  come.  As 
the  thinking  man  contemplates  them,  he  is  led  irresistably  to  the 
conclusion  that  they  do  not  go  on  at  random,  but  that  they  are 
joined  by  connecting  links,  or  are  in  some  way  the  product  of 
knowable  causes.  From  his  earliest  infancy  he  sees  connections 
between  them  which  enable  him  to  foresee  results.  He  finds  that 
fire  burns,  that  the  sun  warms,  that  food  satisfies  his  hunger,  and 
that  heavy  bodies  fall  with  a  certainty  which  shows  the  forces  at 
play  to  be  invariable  in  their  action.  To  penetrate  the  mystery 
in  which  these  forces  are  enshrouded,  he  has  exerted  the  efforts  of 
his  intellect  from  its  first  dawn  until  the  present  time.  What 
general  conclusions  has  he  reached? 

From  the  earliest  times  at  which  man  began  to  think,  two  modes 
of  explaining  the  operations  of  nature  have  presented  themselves 
to  his  attention.  These  modes  are  sometimes  designated  as  the 
teleological,  and  the  mechanical. 

The  teleological  explanation  of  nature,  presupposes  that  her 
operations  are  akin  to  human  actions  insomuch  as  they  are  under 
the  control  of,  and  directed  by  one  or  more  intelligent  beings 
having  certain  ends  in  view ;  that  the  events  are  so  directed  as  to 
compass  these  ends ;  and,  finally,  that  the  relation  of  the  events 
to  the  ends,  admits  of  being  discovered  by  observation  and  study. 
This  last  condition  is  a  very  important  one,  because,  without  it, 
the  teleological  explanation  of  the  cause  of  nature  would  not  be 
a  scientific  one.  The  doctrine  that  the  Author  of  Nature  has 
certain  ends  in  view,  and  directs  the  whole  course  of  events  so  as 
to  bring  them  about,  will  not  enable  us  to  explain  and  predict  the 
events  unless  we  know  what  those  ends  are.  But,  as  I  have 


PRESIDENT   NEWCOMB.  9 

I 

already  said,  the  test  of  scientific  advance  is  the  power  of  fore- 
sight—  of  foreseeing  what  result  any  combination  of  circumstances 
will  lead  to.  If  we  always  had  to  wait  for  the  result,  and  could 
then  only  say,  I  know  this  is  the  result  which  was  intended,  be- 
cause it  has  happened,  no  actual  foresight  would  be  possible  ;  and 
however  excellent  the  doctrine  might  be  SOB  a  theological  one,  it 
would  not  admit  of  being  tested  by  observation  and  experiment, 
and  the  question  of  its  truth  would,  therefore,  not  admit  of  being 
settled  by  scientific  investigation. 

You  may  recall  the  remark  of  a  satirical  philosopher,  when  he 
saw  the  gifts  which  those  who  escaped  the  dangers  of  a  certain 
treacherous  and  stormy  sea  offered  up  to  the  goddess  who  had  this 
sea  at  her  command:  "I  see  no  offerings  from  those  who  were 
lost,"  said  he.  It  was  not  till  the  voyager  had  got  safely  to  shore 
that  he  found  himself  under  the  protection  of  the  goddess. 

It  must  be  well  understood  that  the  teleological  theory  of  nature, 
or,  as  it  is  now  familiarly  called,  the  explanation  of  natural  phe- 
nomena by  design,  has  two  distinct  forms,  the  scientific,  and  the 
theological.  These  forms  are  not  antagonistic  ones ;  the  one 
held  by  scientific  men,  and  the  other  by  theologians ;  for,  as  you 
may  well  know,  the  scientific  form  is  the  one  in  which  scientific 
men  almost  universally  reject  the  teleological  theory,  while  they 
have  nothing  to  say  against  the  other  forms.  The  forms  refer 
only  to  the  fields  to  which  the  theory  may  belong,  the  scientific 
and  the  theological.  The  distinction  turns,  on  whether  we  sup- 
pose the  ends  which  the  Creator  has  in  view  to  be  discoverable  by 
scientific  investigation,  or  to  be  inscrutable.  Only  in  the  former 
case  have  we,  as  scientific  investigators,  anything  to  do  with  the 
question.  The  theory,  as  we  have  to  consider  it,  is  in  brief  this  : — 
that  the  course  of  events  in  inanimate  nature  is  from  time  to  time 
modified  by  invisible  intelligences  just  as  it  is  modified  by  man 
when  he  changes  the  course  of  a  river  or  plants  a  forest. 

The  other  explanation  of  nature  is  the  mechanical  one.  It 
assumes  that  her  processes  go  on  in  accordance  with  certain  laws 
which  admit  of  being  fully  comprehended  by  the  human  mind  so 
far  as  their  effects  are  concerned.  Each  state  of  things  is  the 
effect  of  the  state  which  immediately  precedes  it,  and  the  cause  of 
that  which  immediately  follows  it.  The  course  of  nature  is  thus 
considered  as  an  endless  chain,  of  which  the  work  of  science  con- 
sists in  making  out  the  forms  of  the  links,  and  the  modes,  in  which 


10  ADDRESS    OF 

if 

they  are  connected.  In  this  work  we  have  to  be  concerned  with 
two  things ;  the  general  laws  of  nature,  as  they  are  familiarly 
called,  and  the  facts  or  circumstances  which  determine  the  oper- 
ation of  these  laws.  This  distinction  is  most  clearly  seen  in  hu- 
man laws.  Thou  shalt  not  steal,  is  a  law ;  that  John  has  stolen, 
is  a  fact.  The1  combined  result  of  the  law  and  the  fact  is  that 
John  is  locked  up  in  jail.  So,  that  all  bodies  near  the  earth  gravi- 
tate toward  it  with  a  force  directly  as  their  mass,  and  inversely  as 
the  square  of  their  existence  from  its  centre,  is  a  universal  law  of 
nature.  The  Niagara  river  and  the  precipice  are  facts ;  and  the 
cataract  is  the  result. 

But  the  general  explanation  of  the  course  of  nature,  on  the  me- 
chanical theory,  is  not  of  this  simple  kind,  because  the  laws  of 
nature  do  not  act  singly,  but  in  combination ;  so  that  the  result  of 
each  is  modified  by  the  action  of  all  the  others  which  come  into 
play.  The  law  of  gravitation  is  not  that  all  bodies  must  fall,  but 
only  that  they  tend  to  fall,  and,  therefore,  will  fall  unless  held  up 
by  some  sufficient  opposing  force.  So  long  as  I  support  this  weight 
in  my  hand  it  does  not  fall,  because  the  force  of  gravitation  and 
the  resistance  of  my  hand  neutralize  each  other.  But  the  instant 
I  let  go,  the  weight  drops,  according  to'  a  certain  law  known  as 
that  of  uniformly  accelerated  velocity. 

The  doctrine  I  am  endeavoring  to  elucidate  is  this :  knowing  a 
few  simple  laws  of  nature,  of  which  gravitation  is  one ;  knowing 
also  the  arrangement  of  material  things  within  the  field  of  investi- 
gation ;  that  is,  knowing  the  facts,  we  can  predict  with  unerring 
certainty  what  the  result  will  be  :  .Or  if  we  cannot  predict  it,  it  is 
not  because  of  any  quality  of  the  thing  itself,  but  only  because  of 
the  insufficiency  of  our  powers.  Moreover,  these  results  will  be,  as 
it  were,  another  layer  of  facts,  from  which  it  is  possible  to.  predict 
new  results  to  follow  them,  and  so  on  without  limit,  unless  some 
force  from  without  intervene  to  change  the  course.  If  we  include 
the  whole  of  nature  in  our  field,  no  outside  facts  can  come  in,  and 
her  course,  therefore,  admits  of  being  predicted  with  entire  cer- 
tainty from  beginning  to  end. 

Now  the  point  which  I  wish  to  bring  to  your  attention  is,  the 
revolution  which  modern  science  has  brought  to  pass,  in  the  opin- 
ions of  mankind,  respecting  the  relations  of  the  two  classes  of 
causes,  or  supposed  causes,  which  I  have  described.  That  all 
events  could  be  explained  on  teleological  principles,  it  is  not 


PRESIDENT   NEWCOMB.  11 

likely  that  anyone  ever  supposed.  That  the  falling  of  heavy 
bodies,  the  running  of  rivers,  the  changes  of  seasons  and  the 
revolutions  of  the  heavens,  were  all  in  accordance  with  mechanical 
laws,  at  least  so  far  as  the  phenomena  are  concerned,  no  one  ever 
knowingly  denied.  But  it  was  thought  that  the  action  of  these 
causes  was  from  time  to  time  modified  by  the  introduction  of 
causes  of  the  teleological  class,  just  as  a  rock  might  be  kept  from 
falling  by  the  force  of  cohesion.  The  general  rule  has  been  that 
the  more  ignorant  the  age,  the  more  minute  and  immediate  was 
supposed  to  be  the  action  of  those  beings  who  were  modifying  the 
course  of  nature  in  order  to  compass  their  ends. 

As  illustrating  this  I  might  commence  with  the  age  of  image 
worship,  when  the  fate  of  the  individual  is  supposed  to  be  at  the 
mercy  of  certain  spiritual  entities,  symbolized  by  forms  of  wood, 
stone,  or  wax.  But,  leaving  out  of  consideration  ideas  so  differ- 
ent from  those  which  prevail  among  us,  let  us  come  nearer  home. . 
It  i's  not  many  generations  since  men,  who  knew  that  the  regular 
course  of  nature  went  on  in  accordance  with  mechanical  laws,  be- 
lieved, nevertheless,  that  occurrences  of  a  terrific  or  extraordinary 
character  were  specially  brought  about  to  compass  some  end  of 
Providence.  Not  only  so,  but,  what  is  most  essential  to  our  theme, 
this  end  was  supposed  to  be  a  scrutable  one.  The  motions  of 
stars  and  planets  had  gone  on  from  age  to  age,  until  no  new  aspect 
of  them  inspired  alarm.  But  a  comet  was  looked  upon  as  a 
messenger  specially  sent  to  give  warning  of  a  coming  calamity. 
.The  scrutable  end  was,  in  this  case,  the  warning  of  mankind.  Ordi- 
nary cases  of  sickness  and  accident,  whatever  their  result,  always 
have  been  looked  upon  as  a  part  of  the  regular  course  of  events. 
But  it  is  not  many  centuries  since  the  pestilence  was  believed  to 
be  specially  sent  by  Heaven  to  punish  mankind  for  their  wicked- 
ness. Punishment  and  terror  were  here  the  ends  whicK  Providence 
was  supposed  to  have  in  view.  The  regular  daily  breezes  and 
showers  were  supposed  to  be  tRe  result  of  natural  laws.  But  these 
laws  were  not  supposed  to  be  entirely  adequate  to  the  production 
of  the  tornado,  which  was  again  a  special  messenger,  and  they 
were  suspended,  or  their  action  was  modified  in  times  of  extreme 
drought,  threatening  mankind  with  famine. 

These  special  messengers  of  Heaven  have,  one  by  one,  yoked 
themselves  to  the  car  of  natural  law,  so  that  I  think  I  can  hardly 
be'Vrong  in  saying  that  the  supremacy  of  mechanical  law,  ajad  its 


12  ADDRESS    OF 

adequacy  to  account  for  the  whole  course  of  nature,  as  we  see  it 
going  on  before  us,  is  now  the  almost  universal  opinion  of  edu- 
cated men.  This  revolution  in  human  thought  is,  perhaps,  clearly 
brought  out  in  the  different  view  we  now  take  of  certain  religious 
observances  introduced  by  our  ancestors,  whose  ideas  would  now 
be  considered  as  approaching  the  irreverent.  Take,  for  example, 
the  prayers,  for  the  right  kind  of  weather,  which  we  find  in  our 
prayer-books.  When  they  were  first  composed  and  inserted,  their 
object  was  a  purely  practical  one.  As  the  farmers  now  sometimes 
fire  off  cannon  to  make  the  black  cloud  break  and  discharge  its 
contents  upon  the  parched  field,  so  the  prayers  were  to  be  offered 
up  in  order  that  the  aqueous  vapor  in  the  air  might  be  made  to 
condense  and  fall.  That  a  much  more  exalted  view  of  prayer  than 
this  is  now  taken  by  the  more  enlightened  portion  of  the  religious 
World,  I  think  we  have  every  reason  to  believe. 

Although  we  can  hardly  entertain  a  serious  doubt  that  the  me- 
chanical theory  of  natural  operations,  or,  as  it  is  sometimes  called, 
the  doctrine  of  the  uniformity  of  nature,  is  generally  acquiesced 
in  by  the  mature  thought  of  intelligent  Christendom,  yet  objections 
are  frequently  made  to  it  because  it  seems  to  run  counter  to  some 
of  our  most  cherished  ideas.  If  it  were  not  paradoxical  to  make 
the  assertion,  it  .might  be  said  that  we  hold,  or  at  least  express 
entirely  inconsistent  views  on  the  subject.  The  fact  is  that  we 
are  pupils  of  two  opposing  schools,  which  are,  in  a  certain  degree, 
antagonistic,  one  of  which  we  cannot,  and  the  other  of  which  we 
will  not,  give  up.  In  one  of  these  schools  the  chief  teachers  are 
observation  and  experience.  All  sentiment  and  emotion  are  ban- 
ished from  its  curriculum,  which  admits  only  the  hard  realities  of 
the  outer  world.  The  older  we  grow  the  more  we  see  and  hear  .of 
this  school,  and  the  more  unreservedly  we  accept  its  teachings. 
It  tells  us  fhat  the  whole  course  of  nature  takes  place  in  accord- 
ance with  certain  laws  capable  of  expression  in  mathematical  lan- 
guage ;  that  these  laws  act  with  more  than  an  iron  rigor,  and 
without  any  regard  to  consequences  ;  that  they  are  deaf  to  prayer 
or  entreaty,  and  know  no  such  thing  as  sympathy  or  remorse  ;  that 
if  we  would  succeed  we  must  study  them,  and  so  govern  ourselves 
that  their  action  shall  enure  to  our  benefit. 

The  other  school  is  that  of  sympathy,  emotion,  and  religious 
faith.  In  it,  as  children,  we  receive  our  first  teachings.  It  shows 
us  ourselves  placed,  as  it  were,  in  a  forest  of  mystery,  surrounded 


PRESIDENT   NEWCOMB.  13 

by  forms  over  which  we  have  no  control,  and  able  to  penetrate  so 
little  into  the  surrounding  darkness,  that  we  cannot  tell  what  shall 
happen  to  us  on  the  morrow.  It  has,  in  all  ages,  peopled  the 
thickets  with  invisible  beings  having  an  interest  in  our  welfare  or 
our  injury,  or  with  providential  interferences  designed  to  compass 
ends  of  which  we,  in  advance,  have  no  conception.  Its  teachings 
are  nearest  and  most  welcome  in  times  of  affliction  and  fear.  Its 
objections  to  the  teachings  of  the  other  school,  are  heard  far  and 
wide  through  the  land.  Notwithstanding  the  number  of  forms 
which  these  objections  take,  their  essence  may  be  condensed  into  a 
very  few  sentences.  The  following  will  probably  be  accepted  as 
a  fair  rendering  of  their  substance. 

You  take  a  contracted  and  unphilosophical  view  of  nature  when 
you  say  that  the  world  is  governed  by  inexorable  laws.  These 
laws  are  not  governors,  but  only  the  instruments  of  government 
by  which  the  real  governor  executes  his  purposes.  With  them, 
but  without  subverting  or  violating  them,  he  can  reward  or  punish, 
bring  on  prosperity  or  call  down  disaster,  according  to  the  dictates 
of  his  sovereign  will.  The  child  and  the  peasant  call  the  thunder 
the  voice  of  God.  The  modern  philosopher  attempts  to  correct 
them  by  showing  that  it  is  the  product  of  evaporation  and  of 
atmospheric  electricity.  But  the  view  of  the  child  is  really  the 
more  correct  of  the  two,  because  he  ascends  at  .once  to  the  first 
cause,  and  thus  sees  further  than  the  philosopher  who  corrects  him 
because  the  latter  stops  short  at  the  immediate  or  secondary  cause 
without  even  trying  to  raise  his  eyes  to  the  higher  source  of  power. 
I  think  I  am  not  far  wrong  in  giving  this  as  the  substance  of  the 
most  cogent  objections  which  may  be  anticipated  in  any  quarter 
against  the  mechanical  theory  of  the  course  of  nature. 

Now,  if  these  views  referred  only  to  inscrutable  first  causes  of 
things,  or  to  the  intelligent  but  invisible  substratum  which  under- 
lies the  whole  cause  of  nature,  we  should  have  no  occasion  to 
discuss  them,  because  they  would  lie  outside  the  field  I  have 
assigned  as  that  of  our  contemplation  at  the  present  time,  and 
which  I  have  sought  to  describe  as  the  field  of  phenomena.  The 
doctrines  that  all  things  go  on  in  exact  accordance  with  the  will  of 
the  Creator ;  that  he  has  certain  ends  which  the  laws  of  nature  are 
designed  to  bring  about ;  and  that  an  intelligent  cause  lies  behind 
the  whole  universe  of  phenomena,  are  of  a  class  which  science  has 
no  occasion  whatever  to  dispute.  If  it  were  made  clearly  to  appear 


14  ADDRESS    OF 

that  the  field  of  the  teachings  in  question  was  thus  limited,  and 
was  entirely  distinct  from  that  of  phenomena,  with  which  alone 
•science  is  occupied,  there  would  be  no  occasion  for  dispute  between 
the  two  schools.  I'  have  no  disposition  to  throw  a  single  stone 
across  what  I  consider  the  sacred  boundary  line,  nor  to  enter  a 
field  which  I  am  by  natural  and  acquired  habits  of  thought,  unfitted 
to  cultivate.  As  men  of  science  let  us  by  no  means  attempt  to 
penetrate  a  region  in  which  the  eye  of  science  can  see  nothing  but 
darkness.  If  we  thus  subject  ourselves  to  the  imputation  of  being 
"  of  the  earth,  earthy,'*'  we  may  console  ourselves  that  our  edifice  is 
firm  and  durable  because  it  does  not  seek  to  rise  into  regions  of 
serener  air,  nor  to  rear  its  dome  above  the  clouds. 

I  can  hardly  be  mistaken  in  saying  that  the  objections  to  the 
mechanical  theory  of  nature,  which  I  have  just  tried  to  formulate, 
are  not  always  confined  to  the  field  of  inscrutable  first  causes. 
There  is  a  part  of  the  boundary  line  over  which  the  stones  are 
flying  very  thickly.  While  some  of  the  combatants  may  profess 
to  make  no  attack  on  the  doctrine  of  the  uniformity  of  natural  law, 
I  cannot  but  think  that  these  professions  often  arise  from  a  misap- 
prehension of  the  scientific  side  of  the  question.  Indeed,  I  must 
confess  that  I  have  met  with  a  difficulty  from  my  inability  to  form 
a  clear  idea  of  the  views  really  entertained  by  the  school  now 
tinder  consideration.  I  have  made  a  somewhat  careful  study  of 
some  of  the  most  elaborate  works  of  the  writers  of  the  theological 
school,  devoted  to  this  very  topic,  and  I  have  left  them  without 
being  able  to  decide  in  my  own  mind,  whether  the  writers  do  or 
do  not  hold  unreservedly  to  the  mechanical  theory  of  the  course  of 
nature.  That  nearly  all  intelligent  men  really  believe  in  this 
theory,  at  least  so  far  as  the  present  time  and  dispensation  are 
concerned,  we  have  abundant  reason  for  believing.  Nor  is  there 
even  among  advanced  .theologians  any  lack  of  profession  of  a 
belief  in  the  uniformity  and  supremacy  of  the  laws  of  nature. 
But,  when  thinkers  of  the  other  school  maintain  the  doctrine, 
and  trace  it  to  its  logical  consequences,  undisguised  by  senti- 
mental language  or  figure  of  speech,  they  are  met  with  criticism 
which  I  can  account  for  only  by  supposing  that  the  theologian  un- 
derstands by  laws  of  nature  something  different  from  what  is 
understood  by  the  man  of  science. 

Let  us  try  to  condense  the  questions  at  issue  into  the  smallest 
possible  space.  The  scientific  philosopher  maintains  that  the  natu- 


PRESIDENT   NEWCOMB.  15 

ral  course  of  events  goes  on  in  invariable  accordance  with  certain 
knowable  laws.     He  asks  the  theologian  in  the  words  of  Pope : 

"  Think'st  thou  like  some  weak  Prince  the  eternal  cause 
Prone  for  his  favorites  to  reverse  his  laws  ? 
Shall  burning  ^Etna,  if  a  sage  requires, 
Forget  to  thunder  and  recall  her  fires  ? 
On  air  or  sea  new  motions  be  impress'd, 
O  blameless  Bethel  to  relieve  thy  breast? 
When  the  loose  moimtain  trembles  from  on  high 
Shall  gravitation  cease  if  you  go  by  ? 
Or  some  old  temple,  nodding  to  its  fall, 
For  Chartres'  head  reserve  the  hanging  wall?" 

To  all  these  questions  the  other  answers,  no,  and  thus  all  occa- 
sion for  dispute  ought  to  end.  But  it  does  not  end,  by  any  means  ; 
for  he  proceeds  to  criticise  the  views  of  the  questioner  on  the . 
ground  of  their  narrowness,  and  to  inform  him  that  the  Creator 
can,  (and,  by  implication,  that  he  does)  so  arrange  things  that 
any  result  he  may  wish  shall  be  brought  about  by  the  action  of 
natural  laws  themselves.  "We  do  not  expect  ^Etna  to  recall  her 
fires  when  a  sage  is  near ;  or  the  air  and  ocean  to  acquire  new 
motions  to  preserve  a  saint  from  danger."  *  *  *  "  Should  these 
individuals  not  be  rushing  recklessly  against  the  known  laws  of 
Heaven,  or  should  it  be  the  will  of  God  to  preserve  them,  it  will 
be  found  that  provision  has  been  made  for  their  escape,  and  that 
not  through  the  powers  of  nature  disobeying  their  own  laws,  but 
through  other  powers  in  nature  opportunely  interposing  to  stop, 
to  turn  aside,  or  otherwise  to  modify  their  operation." 

Now,  always  supposing  that  such  remarks  as  these  are  intended 
to  apply  to  the  domain  of  sight,  hearing  and  understanding,  they 
differ  fundamentally  from  the  scientific  theory  in  their  view  of  what 
constitutes  the  laws  of  nature.  The  school  seems  to  look  upon 
causes  and  effects  in  nature  as  belonging  to  two  different  classes 
of  things.  They  see  an  immense  collection  of  causes,  to  each  of 
which  the  appropriate  effect  is  tied.  So  long  as  the  cause  is  fol- 
lowed by  its  effect,  the  laws  of  nature  are  satisfied.  So,  if  the 
Ruler  wants  to  reward,  punish,  kill,  or  rescue,  He  has  only  to  bring 
into  operation  the  appropriate  cause  at  the  proper  moment ;  the 
natural  effect  follows,  and  His  will  is  executed  without  any  viola- 
tion of  the  laws  of  nature.  I  am  not  sure  that  this  is  an  exact 
statement  of  the  views  to  which  I  refer ;  but  it  is  the  best  I  can 
gather  from  the  study  of  the  forms  in  which  they  have  found 
expression.  Supposing  this  to  be  the  view  really  entertained,  it  is 


16  »-'•-_   ADDRESS    OF 

essentially  different  from  that  held  by  the  scientific  philosophy. 
The  course  of  Nature  as  it  presents  itself  to  the  eye  of  science  is 
not  a  collection  of  isolated  causes,  each  with  its  effect  attached  to 
it,  but  it  is  rather  to  be  symbolized  by  a  chain  in  which  each  link 
is  connected  with  the  link  which  precedes  it  and  with  the  one 
which  follows  it.  At  each  moment  of  time,  the  state  of  the  uni- 
verse is  the  effect  of  the  state  which  immediately  preceded  it,  and 
the  cause  of  the  state  which  immediately  follows.  There  are  no 
such  things  as  distinct  causes  and  effects,  but  only  laws  of  prog- 
ress which  connect  the  successive  links  of  the  seemingly  endless 
chain. 

As  an  illustration  of  this,  let  us  take  the  falling  of  the  rock. 
To  the  mere  observer  there  is  no  evident  reason  why  it  should  fall 
at  one  time  rather  than  another,  he  may,  therefore,  feel  that  there 
is  room  for  speculation  as  to  the  cause  which  made  it  fall  at  the  ex- 
act moment  it  did.  But  science  teaches  that  it  will  fall  at  the  very, 
moment  when  the  cohesive  extraction  which  binds  it  to  the  moun- 
tain behind,  becomes  less  than  the  weight  of  the  rock.  We  might 
suppose  a  power  to  so  adjust  the  causes  which  effect  the  cohesion 
that  the  rock  shall  fall  at  some  desired  moment.  But  any  such 
adjustment  would  be  as  complete  a  change  of  the  course  of  nature 
as  if  the  power  should  hold  the  rock  up  after  it  had  begun  to 
fall.  The  natural  processes  by  which  the  cohesion  of  the  rock  is 
*slowly  diminished,  though  largely  hidden  from  our  view,  are  gov- 
erned by  laws  as  precise  in  their  action  as  those  which  regulate 
the  motion  of  the  planets.  The  water  which  falls  from  the  clouds 
slowly  percolates  through  the  ground,  and  enters  a  crack  in  the 
supporting  mass.  It  wears  it  away  at  a  rate  dependent  on  the 
solubility  of  the  material  and  the  quantity  of  water  which  falls. 
A  constant,  but  certain  molecular  action  goes  on  without  ceasing 
between  each  molecule  of  water  and  each  molecule  of  rock.  The 
strength  of  the  latter  is  thus  weakened  according  to  some  law  ad- 
mitting of  precise  mathematical  statement.  Thus,  a  mind  pos- 
sessed of  sufficient  mathematical  ability,  knowing  how  much  water 
runs  over  the  rock  from  time  to  time,  and  knowing  also  the  laws 
of  molecular  action  between  the  rock  and  the  water,  could  deter- 
mine long  in  advance  the  very  moment  at  which  the  rock  would 
fall. 

Going  back  another  step,  we  see  that  the  quantity  of  water 
which  runs  over  the  rock  depends  on  antecedent  circumstances  in 


PRESIDENT   NEWCOMB.  17 

the  same  way,  namely,,  upon  the  quantity  of  the  rainfall  and  the 
arrangement  of  the  crevices  in  the  ground.  However  the  latter 
may  have  been  produced,  the  cause  is  still  another  link  in  the  end- 
less chain  which  we  can  trace  back  to  preceding  links  as  far  as  we 
please.  Equally  is  the  rainfall  a  fixed  element,  determined  by  the 
course  of  the  winds  and  the  amount  of  moisture  which  they  carry. 
Thus  we  have  a  network  of  causes,  too  complicated  for  the  human 
mind  to  trace  in  detail,  but  which  the  philosophy  of  science  teaches 
us  act  with  mathematical  certainty.  No  tempering,  modifying,  or 
adjusting  action  comes  in  at  any  stage  of  the  process,  so  far  as  we 
can  see ;  if  we  admit  such  action,  we  have  to  keep  placing  it 
farther  back  as  our  knowledge  increases. 

Now  there  is  one  feature  of  these  causes,  the  admission  or  re- 
jection of  which  constitutes  the  main  point  of  difference  between 
the  two  schools  of  thought  which  I  have  before  indicated.  All  are 
agreed  that  the  course  of  nature  is  determined  by  what  we  may 
call  causes  or  laws,  but  all  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  scope  of  action 
of  these  laws.  The  great  and  distinguishing  feature  which  the 
school  of  sciences  recognizes,  and  which  the  other  school  does  not 
recognize,  is  that  all  the  laws  of  nature  act  without  any  scrutable 
regard  to  consequences.  I  qualify  my  statement  by  the  word 
scrutable,  because  it  is  entirely  outside  the  pale  of  scientific  re- 
search, to  speculate  upon  possil^e  inscrutable  ends  in  nature.  This 
being  a  subject  of  which  the  man  of  science,  speaking  as  such,  can 
affirm  nothing,  so  he  can  deny  nothing.  Having  found  that  no 
trace  of  regard  for  consequences  can  be  seen  in  the  mode  of  action 
of  the  laws  which  he  investigates,  but  that  the  whole  course  of 
things,  so  far  as  his  eye  can  penetrate,  may  be  explained  and 
predicted  without  supposing  any  such  regard,  the  demands  of 
science  are  satisfied,  and  he  must  there  stop. 

Let  me  illustrate  this  by  going  over  the  train  of  thought  which 
has  just  occupied  us  in  the  opposite  direction,  starting  from  the 
rainfall,  and  tracing  the  succession  of  causes  to  the  fall  of  the 
rock.  The  spot  at  which  each  drop  of  rain  shall  fall  is  determined 
by  antecedent  conditions  entirely,  by  gravitation,  and  the  winds. 
The  drop  neither  seeks  nor  avoids  the  crevices,  never  asks  in  any 
way  what  shall  be  its  destiny  after  it  reaches  the  ground.  It 
strikes  the  ground  wherever  gravity  and  the  winds  bring  it,  per- 
colates through  the  soil  according  to  the  law  of  least  resistance, 

A.  A.  A.  S.,    VOL.    XXVII.  2 


18         ..       ••  ADDRESS    OP 

and  dissolves  the  rock  according  to  the  laws  of  chemical  affinity, 
without  any  respect  to  the  consequences,  immediate  or  remote.  At 
length  a  moment  arrives  at  which  the  cohesive  force  of  the  rock  be- 
comes less  than  the  weight  which  urges  it  downward.  This  mo- 
ment is  fixed  entirely  by  antecedent  circumstances,  such  as  the 
solubility  of  the  rock  and  the  amount  of  water  which  percolates 
over  it.  At  this  very  moment  the  rock  begins  to  full. .  It  falls  six- 
teen feet  the  first  second,  three  times  that  distance  the  next,  and 
so  on,  accord  ing  to  the  mathematical  law  of  falling  bodies,  without 
any  respect  to  the  lovely  character  of  the  beings  it  may  destroy, 
or  the  disasters  with  which  it  may  crush  the  fondest  hopes  of  men. 
The  region  may  be  the  wilderness;  the  passer-by  may  be  a  babe 
in  its  nurse's  arms,  an  angel  of  charity,  fulfilling  her  mission  of 
good  will,  or  a  murderer  aiming  the  deadly  blow  at  his  victim  ;  but 
under  no  circumstances  can  we  see  that  these  conditions  in  any 
way  affect  the  chain  of  causes  which  lead  to  the  falling  of  the  rock, 
or  cause  it  to  wait  a  moment  or  swerve  a  hair's  breadth  from  its 
inevitable  course. 

According  to  the  theory  of  the  course  of  nature,  which  I  am 
trying  to  elucidate,  the  chain  of  causes  which  we  have  described, 
each  cause  acting  according  to  antecedent  conditions,  but  without 
any  regard  to  consequences,  is  the  type  of  the  whole  course  of 
inanimate  nature  as  far  in  space  as  the  telescope  can  penetrate, 
&nd  as  far  back  in  time  as  the  geological  record  can  be  deciphered. 
An  essential  feature  of  the  theory  is,  that  the  laws  which  connect 
the  several  links  of  the  chain,  and  thus  determine  the  progress  of 
events,  do  not  possess  that  character  of  inscrutability  which 
belongs  to  the  decrees  of  Providence,  but  are  capable,  so  far  as 
their  sensible  manifestations  are  concerned,  of  being  completely 
grasped  by  tbe  human  intellect,  and  expressed  in  scientific  lan- 
guage. Without  this,  the  theory  would  have  no  practical  bearing 
whatever,  because  to  say  that  the  course  of  events  is  fixed,  but  by 
laws  which  we  can  never  grasp,  would  give  us  no  clew  at  all  to 
learning  what  that  course  shall  be,  and  would  be  equivalent  to 
telling  us  that  it  is  enshrouded  in  the  same  impenetrable  mystery 
with  first  causes.  A  very  important  feature  of  the  progress  of 
science  is  found  in  the  constant  resolution  of  the  laws  of  nature 
into  more  simple  and  elementary  ones,  until  we  reach  principles  so 
simple  that  it  is  impossible  to  analyze  them  farther.  Let  us  take 


PRESIDENT   NEWCOMB.  19 

as  an  instance  of  this  the  laws  of  the  celestial  motions.  When 
Kepler  discovered  that  the  planets  moved  round  the  sun  in  elipses, 
having  the  sun  in  one  focus,  he  found  what  were,  for  his  time, 
simple  and  elementary  laws.  They  were  entirely  comprehensible, 
admitting  of  being  expressed  in  mathematical  language.  They 
enabled  hfm  to  predict  the  motions  of  the  planets,  and,  so  far  as 
the  intellect  of  the  time  could  penetrate,  they  could  not  be  resolved 
into  more  simple  expressions. 

But  when  Newton  appeared  on  the  scene,  he  showed  that  these 
and  other  laws  could  be  expressed  in  the  simple  and  comprehensive 
form  of  gravitation  of  every  particle  of  matter  toward  every  other 
particle  with  a  force  inversely  as  the  square  of  the  distance  which 
separates  them.  All  the  laws  of  planetary  motion  which  had 
before  been  discovered  were  shown  to  be  reducible  to  this  one 
simple  law,  combined  with  certain  facts  respecting  the  directions 
and  velocities  of  the  planetary  motions.  The  most  essential  of 
these  facts  is,  that  the  velocities  of  the  planets  in  their  orbits  are 
such  that  these  orbits,  under  the  influence  of  the  sun's  gravitation, 
are  nearly  circular. 

By  this  grand  generalization  Newton  reduced  the  laws  of  the 
celestial  motions  to  a  form  so  elementar}^,  simple,  and  comprehen- 
sive, that  no -further  reduction  seems  possible  in  our  present  state 
of  knowledge.  Attempts  have  been  made  to  show  that  gravita- 
tion is  itself  the  result  of  discoverable  causes,  but  they  appear  to 
me  entirely  unphilosophical,  since  the  causes  into  which  they  would 
resolve  gravitation  are  more  complex  than  gravitation  itself.  But 
for  our  present  purpose  it  is  not  necessary  to  concern  ourselves 
whether  gravitation  may  arise  from  some  more  subtile  principle,  as 
yet  undiscovered.  The  point  which  I  wish  you  to  grasp  is  the 
entire  comprehensibility  of  the  law,  as  it  now  stands.  There  is 
no  mystery  surrounding  it.  When  I  say  that  any  body  left  un- 
supported will  fall  toward  the  centre  of  the  earth  until  it  meets 
with  the  earth  itself,  or  some  other  obstacle  to  its  farther  fall,  you 
know  exactly  what  I  mean,  and  what  are  the  results  of  the  law 
which  I  enunciate.  In  a  certain  sense  we  might  say  that  the  laws 
of  nature  are  simply  general  facts,  distinguished  from  special  facts 
by  their  dependence  upon  certain  antecedent  conditions.  Consid- 
ered as  such,  there  can  never  be  any  doubt  as  to  their  meaning  or 
results.  There  is  no  profound  philosophy  involved  in  their  action 


20  ADDRESS    OP 

or  expression  any  more  than  there  is  in  such  statements  as  that  all 
unsupported  bodies  fall  toward  the  centre  of  the  earth ;  that  gun- 
powder, when  touched  by  fire,  suddenly  changes  to  an  incandescent 
gas ;  that  water,  at  ordinary  pressure,  changes  to  steam  at  a 
temperature  of  212°. 

Now,  scientific  investigators  are  earnestly  endeavoring,  each  in 
his  own  sphere,  to  do  for  the  whole  of  nature  what  Newton  did  for 
the  laws  of  planetary  motion,  to  find  and  announce  the  elementary 
principles  which  connect  all  the  links  of  the  endless  chain  which 
symbolizes  her  course.  The  student  of  chemistry  cannot  doubt 
that  the  innumerable  properties  of  the  various  compounds  which 
he  studies  arise  from  the  play  of  certain  attractive  and  repulsive 
forces  among  the  elementary  molecules  of  the  matter  of  which 
these  compounds  are  formed.  Could  he  only  learn  the  law  ac- 
cording to  which  these  forces  act,  chemistry  might  become  very 
largely  a  deductive  science,  and  the  properties  of  compounds 
might  be  predicted  in  advance,  as  the  astronomer  predicts  the 
conjunctions  of  the  planets.  The  idea  now  entertained  by  those 
who  see  farthest  in  this  direction  is  that  all  the  physical  properties 
of  matter  depend  upon  and  may  be  reduced  to  certain  attractive 
and  repulsive  forces  acting  among  the  ultimate  atoms  of  which 
matter  is  composed. 

It  may  also  be  supposed  that  all  the  operations  of  the  vital 
organism,  both  in  men  and  animals,  depend,  in  the  same  way, 
upon  molecular  forces  among  the  atoms  which  make  up  the  organ- 
ism. The  operation  of  forces  unknown  to  chemistry  must,  indeed, 
be  presupposed,  but  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  these 
forces  are  less  simple  than  chemical  ones.  Some  would  even  go 
so  far  as  to  explain  the  facts  of  consciousness  in  this  way.  The 
philosophy  of  this  explanation  belongs,  however,  to  another  de- 
partment of  thought — that  of  scientific  materialism  —  into  which 
we  cannot  at  present  enter. 

The  most  startling  attempts,  in  the  direction  I  have  indicated, 
are  those  which  are  designed  to  show  that  those  wonderful  adap- 
tations which  we  see  in  the  structure  of  living  animals,  and  which 
in  former  times  were  attributed  to  design,  are  really  the  result  of 
natural  laws,  acting  with  the  same  disregard  to  consequences  which 
we  see  in  the  falling  rock.  The  philosophy  of  Darwinism,  and  the 
theory  of  evolution,  will  be  at  once  brought  to  your  mind  as  form- 


PRESIDENT   NEWCOMB.  21 

ing  the  modern  system  of  explanation  tending  to  this  result.  On. 
these,  theories,  the  eye  was  not  made  in  order  to  see,  nor  the  ear 
in  order  to  hear,  nor  are  the  numberless  adaptations  of  animated 
beings  to  the  conditions  which  surround  them  in  any  way  the 
product  of  design.  Absurd  as  this  theory  appears  at  the  first 
glance,  and  great  as  is  the  anxiety  to  secure  its  rejection,  the 
question  of  its  truth  is  to  be  settled  only  by  a  careful  scientific 
study  of  the  facts  of  nature  and  the  laws  of  hereditary  descent. 
The  principle  which  is  to  aid  in  its  settlement  is  universally  ad- 
mitted in  quarters  where  it  is  fully  understood.  We  are  not  to 
call  in  a  supernatural  cause  to  account  for  a  result  which  could 
have  been  produced  by  the  action  of  the  known  laws  of  nature. 
The  question  then  is  whether  these  laws  of  hereditary  descent  and 
of  natural  selection  are  adequate  to  account  for  the  gradual  growth 
of  such  organs  as  the  hand,  the  eye  and  the  ear,  and  for  all  the 
adaptations  which  we  see  in  nature.  If  they  are,  it  would  be  idle 
to  call  in  any  other  cause,  except  we  place  it  behind  the  laws,  and 
if  we  place  it  behind  those  laws  we  must  equally  place  it  behind 
all  others.  Of  course,  such  a  cause  lies  beyond  the  field  of  sight, 
and  does  not,  therefore,  belong  to  scientific  observation.  Granting 
the  theory,  then,  so  far  as  the  eye  of  science  can  penetrate,  the 
whole  result  is  brought  about  by  laws  acting  in  seemingly  blind 
disregard  of  consequences. 

Let  us  now  turn  once  more  to  the  theory  of  scrutable  design, 
which  supposes  at  least  the  occasional  action  of  causes  which  the 
human  intellect  can  perceive  to  have  been  intended  to  produce 
certain  effects,  such  as  the  salvation  of  the  righteous,  the  punish- 
ment of  the  wicked,  the  warning  of  the  indifferent,  or  the  preser- 
vation of  the  race.  Studying  this  theory  from  the  purely  scientific 
standpoint  in  all  the  varying  forms  in  which  history  presents  it, 
we  see  its  distinguishing  feature  to  be  the  idea  of  causes  acting  so 
as  to  bring  about  certain  results. 

When  Pallas  inspired  Diomed  with  renewed  strength,  and  gave 
superhuman  accuracy  to  his  aim,  it  was  in  order  that  he  might  be 
able  to  pierce  his  Trojan  enemies.  Ordinary  investigation  might 
fail  to  show  that  his  hand  trembled  less  than  usual  as  he  raised  his 
javelin,  but  the  goddess  took  care  that  the  last  tremulous  motion 
of  his  hand,  as  the  weapon  left  it,  should  be  in  the  direction  to 
send  it  into  the  breast  of  the  foe.  The  utterances  of  the  oracles 


22  ADDRESS    OF 

were  determined,  not  by  the  past  or  the  present,  but  by  events 
still  in  the  future.  The  blazing  comet  appeared,  not  in  obedience 
to  a  chain  of  causes  commencing  with  the  creation,  but  in  order 
that  man  might  be  warned  of  the  coming  calamity.  When  the 
prayers  of  the  righteous  averted  the  coming  storm,  the  cloud 
moved  aside  in  order  that  their  fields  and  houses  might  be  saved, 
and  when  they  brought  down  the  gentle  rain  upon  the  parched 
fields,  the  rain  fell  in  order  that  famine  might  be  averted. 

These  supposed  causes  differed  from  what  enlightened  minds 
now  understand  by  the  term  Providence,  in  being  amenable  to 
scientific  investigation,  and  in  not  being  included  in  the  regular 
chain  of  natural  phenomena.  The  designs  of  Providence  are 
inscrutable,  but  those  of.  Pallas  and  Juno  were  not.  Careful  ex- 
perimental investigation,  such  as  might  have  been  undertaken  by 
a  Helrnholtz  of  that  time,  would  have  sufficed  to  show  just  how- 
Pallas  wanted  the  spear  thrown,  if  the  view  of  the  Homeric  age 
was  the  correct  one.  When  the  King  died,  or  the  enemy  was  vic- 
torious, men  thought  they  knew  exactly  why  the  comet  appeared 
when  it  did. 

These  views  having  so  far  vanished  into  thin  air,  I  do  not  see 
how  we  can  avoid  recognizing  the  reality  of  the  revolution  which 
modern  science  claims  to  have  made  in  the  views  of  men  respect- 
ing the  course  of  nature.  And  yet,  as  I  have  already  shown,  there 
are  many  tendencies  in  our  being  which  make  us  unwilling  to 
admit  the  revolution,  and  lead  many  to  look  upon  the  old  theory 
as  correct,  provided  it  were  only  considered  as  tracing  causes  to 
the  will  of  the  Creator.  On  what  is  this  view  founded  at  the 
present  time?  Entirely,  it  seems  to  me,  in  ignoring  the  distinction 
between  the  scrutable  and  the  inscrutable,  between  the  seen  and 
the  unseen,  worlds.  Science  has,  to  a  greater  or  less  degree,  ban- 
ished final  causes  from  the  visible  universe ;  but  they  act  with  un- 
diminished  vigor  in  the  invisible  one.  Such  a  translation  may  not 
be  a  great  revolution  in  thought  from  a  theological  point  of  view, 
but  it  certainly  is  from  a  scientific  standpoint,  which  considers 
only  visible  things. 

I  can  readily  imagine  your  asking  if  teleological  causes  can  be 
really  considered  as  absolutely  banished  from  the  whole  domain 
of  visible  nature,  if,  considering  how  limited  our  knowledge,  and 
how  vast  that  part  even  of  the  visible  universe  which  we  do  not 


PRESIDENT   NEW  COMB.  23 

know,  it  is  not  rash  to  assert  that  we  know  the  true  theory  of 
n,ature.  even  in  the  field  of  phenomena.  This  question  may  lead 
us  to  look,  a  little  more  carefully  than  we  have  hitherto  done  upon 
the  exact  standing  of  the  doctrine  of  the  uniform  course  of  nature 
according  to  antecedent  causes,  and  the  relation  of  this  doctrine  to 
modern  scientific  investigation.  And  this  leads  me  to  say  that  it 
would  be  entirely  unphilosophieal  to  regard  the  revolution  I  have 
described  as  a  scientific  discovery  or  induction.  It  may  be  doubted 
whether  the  scientific  mind  is  really  any  less  disposed  to  believe  in 
final  causes  than  the  ordinary  mind.  Nor  can  the  theory  that  the 
course  of  nature  is  symbolized  by  the  chain  of  cause  and  effect,  as  I 
have  descried  it,  be  considered  as  a  product  of  modern  investiga- 
tion simply,  or  as  belonging  especially  to  the  present  age.  It  is  a 
theory  which  has  been,  in  a  limited  sphere,  recognized  by  all  men 
at  all  times.  The  reason  why  modern  science  has  so  greatly  ex- 
tended its  scope  is,  that  modern  science  has  acquired  a  vastly  more 
extended  view  of  nature  than  has  before  been  obtained.  One  of 
the  most  curious  and  suggestive  features  of  the  teleological  the- 
ory  has  been  that  the  action  of  teleological  causes  has  always 
been  ascribed  to  operations  into  which  human  investigation  could 
not  penetrate,  although  their  ultimate  effects  might,  be  plainly 
seen.  Whenever  the  subject  becomes  so  well  understood  that  the 
chain  of  natural  causes  can  be  clearly  followed,  miracles  and  final 
causes  cease,  so  far  as  the  scientific  explanation  of  things  is  con- 
cerned. That  a  ball  or  spear  thrown  in  one  direction  would  bend 
its  course  into  an  entirely  different  direction  no  one  ever  supposed. 
Homer  never  imagined  Pallas  as  changing  the  course  of  the  jave* 
lin  after  it  had  left  the  hand  of  Diomed.  But  those  states  of  the 
nervous  system  which  result  in  a  certain  and  accurate  aim,  or  in  a 
tremulous  or  uncontrolled  arm,  lay  beyond  the  pale  of  physiologi- 
cal knowledge  in  the  time  of  Homer,  so  here  it  was  that  the 
goddess  intervened.  When  nervous  action  became  fully  under- 
stood, the  final  cause  receded  and  took  refuge  in  some  deeper 
arcanum  of  our  ignorance.  Jove  was  never  expected  to  make 
thunder  and  rain  without  clouds,  nor  was  the  falling  of  the  rain 
ever  ascribed  to  his  interference,  because  every  one  believed  that 
if  the  drops  were  once  formed  they  would  fall  at  once  to  the  ground 
without  any  action  on  his  part.  But  the  mixing  currents  of  moist 
and  cool  air,  and  the  processes  of  condensation  which  lead  to  the 


24  ADDRESS    OF 

formation  of  rain  and  electricity,  were  not  understood,  so  here 
Jupiter  had  a  chance  to  work  unseen  by  man.  When  the  mode  in 
which  clouds  were  formed  was  once  understood,  the  god  of  thunder 
left  his  seat  upon  Mount  Olympus  for  a  more  distant  abode.  From 
the  earliest  historic  times  the  man  who  took  a  large  dose  of  poison 
has  died,  as  a  matter  of  course  ;  neither  good  nor  evil  spirit  had 
anything  to  do  with  it.  But  if  brain  disease  bereft  him  of  reason, 
the  malevolence  of  an  evil  spirit  was  called  in  to  account  for  the 
result. 

Now,  I  beg  you  to  notice  that  in  all  these  cases,  the  only  dis- 
tinction we  can  make  between,  those  effects  which  were  supposed 
to  be  produced  by  natural  causes,  and  those  which  were  produced 
b}7  the  will  of  some  higher  power  acting  with  a  scrtuable  end  in 
view,  is  this :  in  the  first  class  of  cases  we  can  clearly  see  the  ef- 
fect to  have  been  produced  by  the  action  of  natural  causes,  and  in 
the  second  we  cannot.  This  distinction,  depending  as  it  does 
upon  the  extent  of  our  knowledge,  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  logical 
one.  Yet,  in  so  far  as  a  belief  in  that  class  of  final  causes  which 
we  have  been  considering  exists  at  the  present  day,  I  see  no  other 
definition  of  the  limits  within  which  these  causes  are  supposed  to 
act.  Let  us  take  an  illustration  from  the  plague  now  desolating 
our  southern  cities.  No  one  would  believe  that  under  any  circum- 
stances any  superior  power'would  build  a  yellow  fever  hospital,  and 
supply  it  with  the  best  medicines.  If  we  should  sny  that  the 
prayers  of  the  whole  nation  for  the  immediate  erection  of  such 
buildings  would  have  no  effect  whatever,  we  should  not  be  accused 
pf  unbelief  or  irreverence  in  any  quarter,  for  every  one  would 
fully  agree  with  us.  But  there  are  great  numbers  of  people  who 
believe  that,  if  the  whole  nation  should  pray  for  frost,  frost  might 
be  sent  in  answer  to  the  prayer  when  it  would  not  have  come  oth- 
erwise. And  to  many  who  do  not  share  this  belief,  the  denial  of 
any  possibility  of  an  influence  of  this  kind  would  seern  to  savor 
much  more  strongly  of  unbelief,  irreligion,  or  irreverence,  than 
the  denial  that  Providence  would  build  a  hospital  without  human 
hands. 

And  yet,  if  the  scientific  philosoph}^  be  correct,  the  providential 
production  of  frost  would  be  as  miraculous  and  as  incredible  as 
the  providential  erection  of  a  hospital  in  a  single  night  without 
human  hands.  The  temperature  of  the  air  and  the  amount  of 


PRESIDENT   NEWCOMB.  25 

moisture  it  shall  have  in  any  given  place,  a  day,  a  month  or  a  jrear 
from  the  present  time,  is  as  completely  fixed  by  the  present  state 
of  things  and  by  the  laws  of  evaporation  condensation  and  motion 
of  gasses  as  are  the  position  of  the  heavenly  bodies.  The  first 
deposition  of  frost  will  be  determined  by  forces  now  at  play,  and 
any  deviation  from  the  inevitable  action  would  be  a  miracle  of  the 
same  kind  as  pieces  of  timber  hewing  themselves  into  shape  and 
putting  themselves  together  untouched  by  man.  Please  notice 
that  this  similarity  between  the  two  states  of  things  is  entirely 
independent  of  any  philosophical  theor}7  of  natural  causes.  All 
we  claim  is  that  the  laws  which  determine  the  motion  of  the  air,  the 
formation  of  clouds,  the  fall  of  rain  and  the  deposition  of  frost, 
are,  with  respect  to  their  certainty  of  action,  of  the  same  class 
with  those  which  determine  the  position,  the  movements,  and  the 
cohesion  of  a  stick  of  timber.  If  you  claim  that  both  classes  of 
causes  are  the  acts  of  the  Creator,  we  have  nothing  to  say  against 
it.  All  we  say  is  that  you  must  interpret  his  acts  in  the  same  way  in 
the  two  cases.  You  must  not  claim  that  He  will  produce  heat  or 
cold  by  a  fiat  of  an  arbitrary  will,  unless  you  also  claim  that  He 
will  build  the  hospital  or  leave  it  unbuilt,  according  to  a  similar 
fiat.  Nor  is  it  of  any  avail  to  say  that  you  know  it  to  be  His  will 
that  the  hospital  shall  remain  unbuilt  unless  man  undertakes  it. 
We  can  in  reply  maintain  that  \\e  know  it  to  be  His  will  that  the 
course  of  nature  shall  go  on  unchanged,  no  matter  how  it  may 
effect  human  interests. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  dividing  line  between  mechanical  and 
final  causes,  as  drawn  by  the  human  mind  in  all  ages,  has  not  been 
fixed  by  any  absolute  criterion,  but  only  .near  the  limits  of  the 
knowledge  possessed  by*  each  generation.  Science  has  extended 
the  line  entirely  beyond  ordinary  mental  vision,  not  by  introducing 
any  new  theory  of  nature,  but  by  extending  the  boundaries  of 
exact  knowledge,  and  with  them,  of  the  field  in  which,  by  com- 
mon consent,  final  causes  do  not  admit  of  being  traced.  The 
telescope  has  revealed  to  us  a  universe  compared  with  which  that 
known  to  ancients  is  but  an  atom,  and  geology  has  opened  up 
to  our  view  a  vista  of  ages  in  which  the  lifetime  of  our  generation 
is  hardly  more  than  a  moment.  And  thus  final  causes  have  taken 
their  flight  from  a  vast  region  in  which  they  before  lay  hid  in  ob- 
scurity. You  may  now  ask,  have  they  simply  taken  refuge  in 


26  ADDRESS    OF 

the  more  distant  but  vastly  wider  circumference  which  now 
marks  the  boundaries  of  our  knowledge,  or  are  we  to  suppose 
them  entirely  banished  from  nature?  This  is  entirely  a  question 
of  intuition,  and  not  at  all  of  scientific  investigation.  I  have 
described  the  scientific  theory,  of  nature  as  not  admitting  scru- 
table  final  causes  at  all,  but  as  claiming  that  the  law  of  the 
falling  rock  is  symbolic  of  all  her  operations.  But  I  think  this 
is  a  view  towards  which  philosophers  have  always  inclined.  We 
must  alwa}rs  expect  that  men  will  incline  to  this  view  in  pro- 
portion to  their  familiarity  with  the  material  side  of  nature.  At 
the  same  time  it  is  evident  to  all  that  there  must  have  been  a  be- 
ginning of  things,  and  that  nature  could  not  have  commenced  her- 
self. We  have,  therefore,  a  wide  belt  left  between  the  origin  of 
nature  and  the  boundaries  of  our  knowledge  in  which  we  may 
suppose  the  inscrutable  cause  to  have  acted.  Here  we  reach 
questions  of  philosophy  which  lie  outside  of  our  field,  and  which, 
therefore,  we  cannot  now  stop  to  consider. 

The  exact  bearing  of  the  subject  will  be  better  understood  by 
condensing  what  has  already  been  said  so  as  to  present  the  whole 
in  a  brief  space. 

1.  When  men  study  the  operations  of  the  world  around  them, 
they  find  that  certain  of  those  operations  are  determined  by  knowa- 
ble  antecedent  conditions,  and  go  on  with  that  blind  disregard  of 
consequences   which    they  call    law.     The    criterion    for   distin- 
guishing  these   operations  is  that  their  "results  admit  of  being 
foreseen.     They  also  find  certain  other  operations  which  they  are 
unable  thus  to  trace  to  the  operation  of  law. 

2.  Men  attribute  this  latter  class  to  invisible  anthropomorphic 
intelligences,  having  the  power  to  bring  about  changes  in  nature, 
and  having  certain  objects,  worthy  or  ignoble,  in  view,  which  they 
thus  endeavor  to  compass.     Men  also  believe  themselves  able  to 
discern  these  objects,  and  thus  to  explain  the  operations  which 
bring  them  about.     The  objects  are  worthy  or  ignoble  according 
to  the  character  of  the  intelligences,  which  again  depend  upon  the 
state  of  society.     In  ancient  times  they  were  often  the  gratifica- 
tion of  the  silliest  pride  or  the  lowest  lusts. 

3.  As  knowledge  advances,  one  after  another  of  these  operations 
are  found  to  be  really  determined  by  1ft w,  the  only  difficulty  being 
that  the  law  was  before  unknown  or  not  comprehended,  or  that  the 


PRESIDENT  NEWCOMB.  27 

circumstances  which  determined  its  action  were  too  obscure  or  too 
'complex  to  be  fully  comprehended. 

4.  Final  causes  having  thus,  one  by  one,  disappeared  from  every 
thicket  which  has  been  fully  explored,  the  question  arises  whether 
they  now  have  or  ever  had  any  existence  at  all.  On  the  one  hand, 
it  may  be  claimed  that  it  is  unphilosophical  to  believe  in  them 
when  they  have  been  sought  in  vain  in  every^  corner  into  which 
light  can  penetrate  ;  on  the  -other  hand,  we  have  the  difficulty  of 
accounting  for  these  very  laws  by  which  we  find  the  course  of 
nature  to  be  determined.  Take,  as  a  single  example,  the  law  of 
hereditary  descent.  How 'did  such  a  law — or,  rather,  how  did 
such  a  process,  for  it  is  a  process  —  first  commence?  If  "this  is 
not  as  legitimate  a  subject  for  inquiry  as  the  question  how  came 
the  hand  and  the  eye  into  existence,  it  is  only  because  it  seems 
more  difficult  to  investigate.  If,  as  the  most  advanced  scientific 
philosophy  teaches,  creation  is  itself  but  a  growth,  how  did  that 
growth  originate  ?  We  here  reach  the  limits  of  the  scientific  field, 
on  ground  where  they  are  less  well  defined  than  in  some  other 
directions,  but  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  concluding  my  remarks 
with  a  single  suggestion  respecting  a  matter  which  lies  outside  of 
them.  When  the  doctrine  of  the  universality  of  natural  law  is 
carried  so  far  as  to  include  the  genesis  of  living  beings,  and 
the  adaptations  to  external  circumstances  which  we  see  in  their 
structure,  it  is  often  pronounced  to  be  atheistic.  Whether  this 
judgment  is  or  is  not  correct,  I  cannot  say,  but  it  is  very  easy  to 
propound  the  test  "question  by  which  its  correctness  is  to  be  deter- 
mined. Is  the  general  doctrine,  of  causes  acting  in  apparently 
blind  obedience  to  invariable  law  in  itself  atheistic?  If  it  is,  then 
the  whole  progress  of  our  knowledge  of  nature  has  been  in  this 
direction,  for  it  has  consisted  in  reducing  the  operations  of  nature 
to  such  blind  obedience.  Of  course,  when  I  say  blind  you  under- 
stand that  I  mean  blind  so  far  as  a  scrutable  regard  to  consequence 
is  concerned — blind  like  justice,  in  fact.  If  the  doctrine  is  not 
atheistic,  then  there  is  nothing  atheistic  in  any  phase  of  the  theory 
of  evolution,  for  this  consists  solely  in  accounting  for  certain 
processes  by  natural  laws.  I  do  not  pretend  to  answer  the  question 
here  involved,  because  it  belongs  entirely  to  the  domain  of  the- 
ology. All  we  can  ask  is  that  each  individual  shall  hold  consistent 
views  on  the  subject,  and  not  maintain  the  affirmative  of  the 


28  ADDRESS   OP  PRESIDENT   NEWCOMB. 

question  on  one  topic,  and  the  negative  on  another.  My  object  in 
presenting  the  views  I  have  has  been,  not  so  much  to  propound 
a  new  theory  as  to  promote  consistency,  precision,  and  independ- 
ence of  thought  among  those  who  discuss  the  subject. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 
LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


S  W*^ 

,~c 

MAY  3  1  ,359 

ItilQftQ 

J  UN  /kyj  UT  U  1  b  U  . 

MAY  2  4  1989 

CIRCULATE 

1 

OEC  1^  P* 

YC  22730 
U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


. 


